Mozilla on the Mac is nowhere near as inconsistent as the linux version. At least it uses Carbon controls and menus. It just shows how consistent the overall Mac interface is that you brought up a web browser with probably less than five percent marketshare of the Macs five percent marketshare.
Oh well. Or take (gasp) OpenOffice or any other X app. Panther will support X out of the box, btw. And that's a good thing, all the inconsistency be damned
But blaming non-Mac apps being inconsistent to Mac apps is just as pointless as blaming non-KDE apps being inconsistent to KDE apps.
OK I didn't realize that. I could never get Mac copy and paste to work properly when I was on RedHat 7.2. Don't recall the KDE version. After this I was just used the annoying X style where you can't paste over something which is what I do most with paste.
Actally the X-way always faster than the MacOS-way: When pasting over, instead of select, Ctrl+C, select, Ctrl+V (2 keyboard operations, 2 mouse operations) you do select, paste, select, delete or backspace (1 keyboard operation, 3 mouse operations). It's faster because you only have to switch between keyboard and mouse twice instead of 3 times and you don't need a modifier key.
Yes it's different, but when you think about it, it's much more intuitive to use the delete key to delete.
Of course for just pasting, it's even faster in comparison.
No it definitely looks like a button but a menu pops up when you click it.
No, it has a small black triangle like any other menu. (Unlike the Apple-menu on the top-left, btw.)
3: Wrong. There are 2 clipboards. If you use it MacOS-style, you will never know it does Unix-style, too. (But as soon as you find out you will switch to Unix-style because it's just superior)
4: Wrong, it behaves and looks like any other menu.
I don't see why you cannot have easily recognizable "great looking" icons. I've never had a problem recognizing what an icon is on Mac OS X.
Well, I did.
On KDE, I use 16x16 pixel icons without problems. On MacOSX I use at least 32x32 and I sometimes still had to hover the mouse over the dock to zoom the icon.
it is very inconsistent
Can you come up with one example of KDE inconsistency?
One example for inconsistency in MacOSX is the single/double-click mish-mash. I don't see anything like that in KDE.
lacks useful file management features such as spring loaded folders, folder actions and column view mode.
Spring loaded folders are indeed very nice, I don't know exactly what you mean by folder actions, of course KDE has column view mode.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of nice features in MacOSX, but unfortunately they can't make up some basic shortcomings, especially multiple desktops and Unix-style paste.
The irony is, the lack of costume features is part of what makes OS X a much better platform for just getting work done.
You couldn't be more wrong.
If you buy a computer, unpack it and just want to "play around" and admire graphics, great looking icons and animations - ie what you do in the first 30 minutes after you buy a computer, MacOSX is the greatest there is.
But if you want to get some work done, that means have ugly, but well recognizable icons (you cannot have both pretty and recognizable. Recognizable is comic-like, pretty is with millions of colors, sorry), no animations (I wasn't able to turn off all animations in MacOSX) use many applications at once (with multiple desktops), nothing I've seen beats KDE.
If you want a pretty desktop, go for MacOSX, if you want a useful desktop, go for KDE.
It's really ironic. The only reason KDE is bashed for "not being able to get work done" is because indeed is optimized for getting work done and lacks demoability.
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel.
Who is forcing you to use the code? There is no source-code available for Windows (and the MS-lovers don't have a problem with that) so why can't you pretend that Linux doesn't come with a source code and not touch it? I don't see your problem here.
If you don't redistribute it, you can do whatever you want and use GPLed code in whichever way you please. Since most programmers work in-house (something like 90%) and never distribute anything outside their organization, it would be possible (but stupid because you have to re-patch for every version) to keep all the stuff in-house and never distribute anything back.
Even IF you used GPLed code for a project in which you do indeed redistribute, using the GPL is not the only option. Yes: You do not have to GPL your project when you violate the GPL. Just because some morons repeat it all over doesn't make it true. What you have to do is the same you have to do with any other license-conflict: You have to straigten it out. GPLing your code is just one way to do it, rewriting the GPLed parts is another. Of course you may be fined for copyright-violation, just like you would be fined if you redistribute any CSS product.
Whether the Linux kernel has any SCO I.P. in it has yet to be proven, but if it does then everyone is on pretty shaky ground.
Only those who broke the copyright have anything to fear. FYI, downloading stuff from Napster/Kazaa/edonkey is not illegal, only uploading is. - Simply because the downloader is not made aware of any copyright.
So IF SCO really shares some code with Linux and IF that code is really the IP of SCO (lots of their stuff is from BSD) and IF SCO can make the courts believe that they didn't realize for years that they were distributing by GPL the code which is worth (according to SCO) 3 billion dollars - funny, you have a 3-billion dollar feature and don't realize it's in Linux for years? Seems a little bit far-fetched for me - and IF the court rules that SCO's utter ignorance of what they distributed protect them from the GPL and IF the court orders the IP to be removed (which is not sure, they could also just request the offender - the one and only the one who has put the IP in there - to pay damages)
... then the Linux community will rewrite the code portions within a week, release a new kernel, distributors will use it in their new releases and the old "bad" kernel will be obsolete long before the court case ends.
But even then you have nothing to fear for running an old Linux kernel.
But anyway, there are so many IFs in that scenario that all this is purely speculative.
If so, the poster should have told us: "We have gone down the Microsoft path and will either pay whatever Microsoft charges us or go out of business, whichever comes first."
The other poster may be ignorant of what Windows can do, but you are ignorant of reality:
You have to install lots and lots of extra stuff on Windows to make it work over ssh. Installing that costs time and money.
Just like the other poster, nobody uses Windows over ssh because of the above point. If you have any questions you are unlikely to find the answer on newsgroups etc. because there are so few people knowing it. Of course you don't get any support from Microsoft
Often you don't know that you need remote access in advance. Assume you are on holyday and a problem on the server arises. - On your Windows default install, you are screwed, on your Linux default install it's no problem.
So yes, it is possible to administer Windows over ssh, it's just a pain in the ass compared to Linux, sorry.
Any intelligent being (so I exclude PHBs and stratjakt here) realizes that Linux is the only OS available from and supported by more than one commercial vendor out there.
So no matter what, there will be no vendor lock-in on the OS-level, simply because there are plenty of different Linux vendors.
Unless MS is forced to remove IE from Windows as default IE will remain in the dominant position regardless of which browser has the best features.
Wrong.
Playstation 3 will sell millions of units and will not run IE
Internet-aware Cellphones run Symbian and don't run IE. As soon as the providers get a clue and offer affordable Internet connectivity, expect millions of wireless Internet users.
Many organizations move to Linux, especially governments.
If you add all those points, you will easily get over 20% of users who can't even run IE. And 20% is more than enough to break IE-domination because 20% is too large to ignore, even though the majority will still use IE.
(about 4500 pageviews 1st to 13th of July (or 30000 hits), robots, admin's page impressions and spiders are excluded)
I might add that site is sometimes used as reference in usenet-newsgroups, where the ratio of non-IE users is much, much higher. Also, Formula 1 is very popular in Europe where the non-IE ratio is also higher than in Microsoft-country.
Anyway, it shows that coding for IE is just plain dumb. You don't know where your visitors will come from. Another site I made has a IE-share of 97%. So while in general over all sites it might be true that IE holds 90% on the average you can't know in advance how much of the action you will miss when you lock out other browsers.
Also when the Playstation3 gets rolling and millions of new Internet-aware cellphones are sold you can expect millions of new non-IE users.
Why is linux getting all that good press is the real puzzlement.
What you BSD-guys will never understand is that Linux is a safer investment than BSD, Windows and most other systems.
Why?
Because the GPL gives the guarantee that nobody runs off with the source and forces an incompatible de-facto standard down people's throats.
You know, just EXACTLY what happened to Unix in the 70's and 80's, so please don't tell me that this can't happen.
Just a few weeks ago, many big corporations have formed a Linux-embedded initiative (it was on slashdot). With BSD this simply wouldn't be possible. Each corporation would be afraid that some other corporation would be working on their own stuff and then release it themselves. - Again look at Unix, it already happened many times, it would happen again.
This is just one example of many, there are already a lot of mulit-corporation GPL initiatives while there are hardly any BSD-based ones.
That was the major big reason.
The minor reasons are commercial, easily installable distros, commercial support available, better hardware support, better software support and bigger mindshare.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you like to throw around wild claims maybe you can show me just one desktop-centric "thing" that isn't graphical in SuSE but is in Windows.
It's funny that the Linux-using "Linux not ready for desktop" crowd are almost exclusively Gnome users.
Now each desktop has the licensing costs of VMWare, Windows licensing is already paid and there is no Linux licensing.
Oh well. Or take (gasp) OpenOffice or any other X app. Panther will support X out of the box, btw. And that's a good thing, all the inconsistency be damned
But blaming non-Mac apps being inconsistent to Mac apps is just as pointless as blaming non-KDE apps being inconsistent to KDE apps.
OK I didn't realize that. I could never get Mac copy and paste to work properly when I was on RedHat 7.2. Don't recall the KDE version. After this I was just used the annoying X style where you can't paste over something which is what I do most with paste.
Actally the X-way always faster than the MacOS-way: When pasting over, instead of select, Ctrl+C, select, Ctrl+V (2 keyboard operations, 2 mouse operations) you do select, paste, select, delete or backspace (1 keyboard operation, 3 mouse operations). It's faster because you only have to switch between keyboard and mouse twice instead of 3 times and you don't need a modifier key.
Yes it's different, but when you think about it, it's much more intuitive to use the delete key to delete.
Of course for just pasting, it's even faster in comparison.
No it definitely looks like a button but a menu pops up when you click it.
No, it has a small black triangle like any other menu. (Unlike the Apple-menu on the top-left, btw.)
2: Never used Kate.
3: Wrong. There are 2 clipboards. If you use it MacOS-style, you will never know it does Unix-style, too. (But as soon as you find out you will switch to Unix-style because it's just superior)
4: Wrong, it behaves and looks like any other menu.
Exactly.
... why downloading a plugin for Flash is easier than downloading a plugin for SVG (for IE; or not download anything for Mozilla at all)
Well, Flash needs a plugin just like SVG on IE, so I don't see the big difference here.
But SVG is not controlled by a company, should be better handled by web spiders etc. and should also be easier to create via PHP or Perl.
I don't really see a downside in using SVG.
Well, I did.
On KDE, I use 16x16 pixel icons without problems. On MacOSX I use at least 32x32 and I sometimes still had to hover the mouse over the dock to zoom the icon.
it is very inconsistent
Can you come up with one example of KDE inconsistency?
One example for inconsistency in MacOSX is the single/double-click mish-mash. I don't see anything like that in KDE.
lacks useful file management features such as spring loaded folders, folder actions and column view mode.
Spring loaded folders are indeed very nice, I don't know exactly what you mean by folder actions, of course KDE has column view mode.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of nice features in MacOSX, but unfortunately they can't make up some basic shortcomings, especially multiple desktops and Unix-style paste.
You couldn't be more wrong.
If you buy a computer, unpack it and just want to "play around" and admire graphics, great looking icons and animations - ie what you do in the first 30 minutes after you buy a computer, MacOSX is the greatest there is.
But if you want to get some work done, that means have ugly, but well recognizable icons (you cannot have both pretty and recognizable. Recognizable is comic-like, pretty is with millions of colors, sorry), no animations (I wasn't able to turn off all animations in MacOSX) use many applications at once (with multiple desktops), nothing I've seen beats KDE.
If you want a pretty desktop, go for MacOSX, if you want a useful desktop, go for KDE.
It's really ironic. The only reason KDE is bashed for "not being able to get work done" is because indeed is optimized for getting work done and lacks demoability.
No they can't because they don't own it.
60 lines of code doesn't make it their property.
Some points you miss:
Only those who broke the copyright have anything to fear. FYI, downloading stuff from Napster/Kazaa/edonkey is not illegal, only uploading is. - Simply because the downloader is not made aware of any copyright.
So IF SCO really shares some code with Linux and IF that code is really the IP of SCO (lots of their stuff is from BSD) and IF SCO can make the courts believe that they didn't realize for years that they were distributing by GPL the code which is worth (according to SCO) 3 billion dollars - funny, you have a 3-billion dollar feature and don't realize it's in Linux for years? Seems a little bit far-fetched for me - and IF the court rules that SCO's utter ignorance of what they distributed protect them from the GPL and IF the court orders the IP to be removed (which is not sure, they could also just request the offender - the one and only the one who has put the IP in there - to pay damages)
But even then you have nothing to fear for running an old Linux kernel.
But anyway, there are so many IFs in that scenario that all this is purely speculative.
Somebody please hand the man a donut, he got the point.
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
If so, the poster should have told us: "We have gone down the Microsoft path and will either pay whatever Microsoft charges us or go out of business, whichever comes first."
So yes, it is possible to administer Windows over ssh, it's just a pain in the ass compared to Linux, sorry.
PHBs will always do what the majority will do, those people are unable to think for themselves.
Munich is the beginning and a great reference. With more examples like that, PHBs will follow.
So no matter what, there will be no vendor lock-in on the OS-level, simply because there are plenty of different Linux vendors.
What makes Linux expensive are short-term costs: retraining, VMWare (which will be used in Munich), etc.
But in the long term Linux is a lot cheaper: Easier to administer, no license hassles and fees, you decide when and what to upgrade.
What is holding Linux back is very often prejudices and unawareness.
Examples like Munich are very important and already did influence a lot of other organizations.
Wrong.
If you add all those points, you will easily get over 20% of users who can't even run IE. And 20% is more than enough to break IE-domination because 20% is too large to ignore, even though the majority will still use IE.
IE: 68.37%
Moz: 27.51%
old NS: 2.61%
Opera: 1.22%
Konq: 0.29%
Win: 87.45%
Lin&Unix: 11.77%
Mac: 0.78%
(about 4500 pageviews 1st to 13th of July (or 30000 hits), robots, admin's page impressions and spiders are excluded)
I might add that site is sometimes used as reference in usenet-newsgroups, where the ratio of non-IE users is much, much higher. Also, Formula 1 is very popular in Europe where the non-IE ratio is also higher than in Microsoft-country.
Anyway, it shows that coding for IE is just plain dumb. You don't know where your visitors will come from. Another site I made has a IE-share of 97%. So while in general over all sites it might be true that IE holds 90% on the average you can't know in advance how much of the action you will miss when you lock out other browsers.
Also when the Playstation3 gets rolling and millions of new Internet-aware cellphones are sold you can expect millions of new non-IE users.
The days of IE domination are counted.
I have about 20-30 windows with about 3-8 tabs each open normally and it rarely crashes, and if it does, only one window crashes.
A 6-billion $ system (halved to 3 billion) seems outrageous.
What you BSD-guys will never understand is that Linux is a safer investment than BSD, Windows and most other systems.
Why?
Because the GPL gives the guarantee that nobody runs off with the source and forces an incompatible de-facto standard down people's throats.
You know, just EXACTLY what happened to Unix in the 70's and 80's, so please don't tell me that this can't happen.
Just a few weeks ago, many big corporations have formed a Linux-embedded initiative (it was on slashdot). With BSD this simply wouldn't be possible. Each corporation would be afraid that some other corporation would be working on their own stuff and then release it themselves. - Again look at Unix, it already happened many times, it would happen again.
This is just one example of many, there are already a lot of mulit-corporation GPL initiatives while there are hardly any BSD-based ones.
That was the major big reason.
The minor reasons are commercial, easily installable distros, commercial support available, better hardware support, better software support and bigger mindshare.